Mevzuatın tek bir maddesi

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns the current consolidated text, and if the requested article does not exist, it returns the list of existing articles.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and keeps examples short. The Turkish and English sentences partly repeat the same idea, but they add useful context such as 'consolidated text' and the fallback behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given full schema parameter coverage, an output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the target, article formats, gives an example, and describes the missing-article fallback; remaining details like precedence between kimlik and no are already in the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example (kimlik 1.5.6698, madde 6 → KVKK special-category data article) and valid madde formats, which help the agent understand parameter intent beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation and resource: returning the current consolidated text of one article of a Turkish act. Its phrasing 'tek bir maddesi' and 'One article' clearly distinguishes it from full-text and search siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than explicit. The example with kimlik 1.5.6698 suggests using a result from mevzuat_ara, but the description does not directly say when to prefer this tool over mevzuat_metin or mevzuat_ara.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.